Lambourne v Baker (No 7) - [2025] NSWCA 51

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lambourne v Baker (No 7) [2025] NSWCA 51
Hearing dates: 27 March 2025
Date of orders: 27 March 2025
Decision date: 28 March 2025
Before: Adamson JA
Decision:
Dismiss the application that Adamson JA recuse herself.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — application for recusal —apprehended bias — application declined

Legislation Cited:
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46

Cases Cited:
Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR 135; [2015] HCA 20
Lambourne v Baker (No 10) [2025] NSWCA *

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Marc Alan Lambourne (First Applicant)
Glenn Craig Pollett (Second Applicant)
Punters Show Pty Ltd (Third Applicant)
Dallas Matthew Baker (First Respondent)
Todd Cameron Buckingham (Second Respondent)
BetMakers Technology Group Limited (Third Respondent)
12 Follow Pty Limited (Fourth Respondent)
Operis Momentus Pty Limited (Fifth Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M A Lambourne (Applicants) (Self represented)
A P Cheshire SC (Respondents)
Solicitors:
Not applicable (Applicants)
Vintage Law (Respondents)

File Number(s): 2019/407870

JUDGMENT

This judgment deals with an application foreshadowed by Marc Lambourne that I recuse myself. The background to his application is as follows.

Mr Lambourne’s application for review of orders made by Price AJA

On 25 March 2025, the Court, constituted by Ball JA, Griffiths AJA and me, heard a notice of motion filed by Mr Lambourne on 20 December 2024 for review pursuant to s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) of orders made by Price AJA on 25 November 2024.

Preliminary matters

Previously, on 21 February 2025, when the matter came before the Registrar, directions were made for the filing and service of written submissions. The Registrar listed the matter for hearing on 25 March 2025 with an estimate of two hours. Mr Lambourne did not agree with this estimate but the estimate was noted as it reflected an assessment of the time which would reasonably be required to hear the motion, having regard to its nature and ambit.
Prior to the hearing of the notice of motion, the Court assembled the relevant materials for the notice of motion, which largely comprised previous judgments of this Court in the matter, the notice of motion which was to be heard on 25 March 2025 and the transcript of the hearing before Price AJA, whose decision was the subject of Mr Lambourne’s application for review. The materials also included copies of the parties’ detailed written submissions which had been filed following directions.

The hearing of the application for review

The hearing of Mr Lambourne’s motion commenced at 10.15am on 25 March 2025. Mr Lambourne appeared for himself and sought, and was granted, leave to appear for the other two applicants. Mr Cheshire SC appeared for the respondents to the motion. Mr Lambourne addressed the Court orally and also with reference to his written submissions. Mr Cheshire responded orally and also by reference to his written submissions. At about 11.45am,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lambourne v Baker (No 7) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWCA 51
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application for recusal was brought by the plaintiff, Mr Lambourne, against Justice Adamson of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought the recusal of Justice Adamson on the grounds of apprehended bias, alleging that her Honour’s previous conduct in the proceedings gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that she might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions to be decided.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of Justice Adamson, such that her Honour ought to recuse herself from hearing the appeal. This required the court to consider the established legal test for apprehended bias, which involves assessing whether a fair-minded lay observer, having considered the facts, would have apprehended that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application. Her Honour applied the well-established test for apprehended bias, considering the plaintiff's allegations in light of the objective standard required. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that a fair-minded and informed observer would apprehend bias on the part of Justice Adamson. The court concluded that the plaintiff's concerns were not such as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application that Justice Adamson recuse herself was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss the application that Adamson JA recuse herself.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Lambourne v Baker (No 7) [2025] NSWCA 51
Hearing dates:	27 March 2025
Date of orders:	27 March 2025
Decision date:	28 March 2025
Before:	Adamson JA
Decision:	Dismiss the application that Adamson JA recuse herself.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — application for recusal —apprehended bias — application declined
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46
Cases Cited:	Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63 Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR 135; [2015] HCA 20 Lambourne v Baker (No 10) [2025] NSWCA *
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Marc Alan Lambourne (First Applicant) Glenn Craig Pollett (Second Applicant) Punters Show Pty Ltd (Third Applicant) Dallas Matthew Baker (First Respondent) Todd Cameron Buckingham (Second Respondent) BetMakers Technology Group Limited (Third Respondent) 12 Follow Pty Limited (Fourth Respondent) Operis Momentus Pty Limited (Fifth Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: M A Lambourne (Applicants) (Self represented) A P Cheshire SC (Respondents) Solicitors: Not applicable (Applicants) Vintage Law (Respondents)
File Number(s):	2019/407870